Springfield daily republic. [volume] (Springfield, O. [Ohio]) 1887-1888, 1887-03-01
TUESDAY EVENING. MARCH :. 1881
THAT Police BILL.

win by throwing mud in the eyes of the
people in the hope of being able to divert
attention from the real meat in the case
Thus the advocates of the police bill, through
their organ. edited by democrat. are en-
gagged now in classifying as idiots, " "a
batch of politicians for revenue only"
machine partisans," etc. all who dare
oppose them in their nefarious schemes to
capture the city. by means of the police
bill. This may be true that We are idiots,
but before the matter is finally disposed of
We prefer 10 have a more competent judge
pass sentence in our case. than the demo-
cratic editor referred TO above. II may he
also that such good and true republicans as
Judge White. eN-Judge Goode. Attorney
Mower. Attorney Wallace. Judge Miller.
Robert johnson, Esq, and a host of Others,
would prefer TO appeal their case. These
gentlemen. thoroughly competent to digest
the police bill. and all of them anxious for
municipal reform. have stated that the
bill has many and serious objections.
These gentlemen are cited from a long list,
holding like opinions, to give the public
some idea of the class of citizens whom
this stripping of democratic editor is thus
villifying.
. But the case in question is the police bill
and not this embryo democratic editor who
presumes to dictate 10 republicans their
course OF duty.
As we have before stated, we are opposed
to the bill because We find no merit in il. as
applied TO Springfield, beyond what
it has already accomplished. in abol-
ishing the Office of marshal. and further
= we believe ii TO be democratic scheme by
means of which they hope 10 increase their
chances Of gaining complete control of our
municipal affairs. In this opinion We be-
lieye we have sufficient evidence to Justify
our position.
Now as to the merits of the bill. The
question of economy has been largely
dwelt upon by those favoring the bill. they
claiming that the new system could be
operated at much less expense than the
present system. But let us examine a lit
tie. Under the old or present system, the
only officer is the mayor. whom We will
presume TtctiNc> III Itt> 3.pou, lot
himself and his clerk. Of this.
amount the city paying nothing. but the
offender footS the bill Under the new
law. if council should iix the salaries Of all
the officers combined at So. 900. as the or,ii-
nance introduced provides. there would
only be left $500 10 meet the other court
expenses for one year. Does any one sup
pose that this 5000 would pay one-tifth of
that expense? Certainly not. The expense
of an extra policeman. or perhaps two. TO
attend TO the court, for il must be remem-
hered that thisqs TO be a court whose Off
GERS come from the higher strata of society.
the jury fees, the witness fees and a thous-
and one other expenses, towards pay
ing which this $500 refer to above, will cut
but little figure. These expenses are all
paid by the city. and will reach good
round sum. far above the present cost. 20
the taxpayer.
Now, as 20 the working of the bill As re-
CARDS the offender. We do not advocate
the present system; We believe it to be bad
law that requires au officer to sit as both
as judge and accusor, but much nonsense
has been written regarding the inefiiciency
of Its workings. We do not believe that
there are many cities in Ohio where life
and property are as well guarded
as they are in Springfield.
We do not believe that there are many cit
les in Ohio that can boast of better protec-
I on to her citizens than ours. Our wives,
free TO 90 and come upon our streets, and
rarely do We hear of an oifense being COM
mitted against them. Let this be said to
the credit of the present system with all of
its garing faults.
While under the present system there
Of the fee system, tho same
forces would be at work creating like
faults under-the new law. Let Us cite a
case: \ man is brought before the mayor
charged with an offense and he gets the
prOyerbial dollar and costs and is dis
charged. when his punishment should have
been much more severe, but the mayor
wanted bin back in short time for another
fee. Under the new law an offender is
brought before the police judge the Judge
sizes him and remembers that the election
of a new police judge is drawing nigh. this
man votes and | want his vote consequently
he goes Tree or goes with such
light penalty that bis vote is secured for
the judges reelection. This is only re-
ferred to as an illustration that one is as suS-
I'D
the one is no improvement on the other. As
far As that goes. We take no stock in the
great corruption that prevails under the
present system, and the great purity that
would prevail under the new Evils exist
under the present system, but it is not all
evil, neither is the fee system wholly bad
il il serves no other purpose than to bring
the daily petty offender TO Justice who,
under salaried mayor and police !
court. might go free, as there
might be a disposition to allow him to 90
free in order that his vote might be secured
at the next election. 1t is as just TO attrib- !
ute such motives for leniency under the new |
system As it is to attribute over-zealouspess |
under the fee system. Our position on
the fee system is well understood We are |
opposed TO it, but we only want to show
that it is probably not 50 bad as those |
fayOring the new police bill ATTEMPT TO
picture it, and that il is possible to continue |
and even prosper, under that plan for one
or two years longer, until we can get such |
legislation as We want
The new bill is not what we want, and its |
workings. if adopted, will be found to be |
both tedious, cumbersome and expensive, |
besides increasing the number of our Offices |
beyond the number necessary 10 transact